Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) has announced his support for legislation that would permit the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy banning openly gay service members, making him the second Republican to go on record in favor of conditional repeal language attached to a pending defense budget bill.

“I have been in the military for 31 years and counting, and have served as a subordinate and as an officer. … When a soldier answers the call to serve and risks life or limb, it has never mattered to me whether they are gay or straight. My only concern has been whether their service and sacrifice is with pride and honor,” Brown said after two days of Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on “don’t ask” and a Defense Department study of how repeal could be implemented.

“Once the tax issue is resolved, I have made it clear that if the Majority Leader brings the Defense Authorization bill to the floor with sufficient time allowed for debate and amendments, I would vote to proceed to the bill,” she said in a statement.

185 Comments

If I had time, it might be fun to root through some of the old GP comments about Scott Brown, from lefties. I seem to recall that he was supposed to be the next anti-gay Hitler or something, because he only accepted gay marriage as “settled law” in Massachussetts – rather than, say, loving it to the point where he’d have one.

as anti-gay, but rather seems quite open to the idea of ssm as long as it is taken on by the people on the state level, very much like cheney. and he seems pretty open minded. under his ‘issues’ I do appreciate that he looks at another hot issue of abortion and states this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, he also continues with his belief that there is a need to reduce the number of abortions in America. sounds like a fella with a good head on his shoulders. Comment by rusty — January 7, 2010 @ 10:31 pm – January 7, 2010

Oh Please! I’m suppose to waste my time defending the obvious. I actually have lost all respect for you since you call Dallas a friend. That troll has been banned from more blogs than carter has pills.

Scott Brown favors repeal of DADT therefore making him “open-minded”. So, if you don’t favor the repeal of DADT you MUST be a bigot, then? Is that the strategy gay “conservatives” are going to use to cajole Republicans into supporting the socially liberal position on repealing DADT?

Seane, aren’t you late for a John Birch meeting? Also, I hate to break it to you, but there isn’t anything traditional about being a lesbian. So I’d stop calling yourself a traditionalist.
B. Daniel…would that be Benjamin Danie? If so you might be Jewish. I have a lot of respect for Jewish people (liberal Jews that is). They have been in the forefront of defending gay rights in a way that Christians (especially conservative Christians) never have.

Jomama, you must be taking lessons from Lori. You have no answer to my question, you can’t refute the message so you collapse into smearing the messenger. And, like Lori, you resort to calling me gay as if that were THE sure fire invalidation of anything I say. I must say, you’re a good student…of very bad lessons.

It tells us everything we need to know that your idea of intelligent political analysis is from a guy who’s only qualification is telling people how to stick things up their butt for a living and finding enough prostitution ads to fund his insipid weekly rag.

Yes, jomama, only Dems would even consider lifting DADT. Oh, but wait… I seem to remember this:

You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight. – Barry Goldwater

I also remember that some guy named, um , Ronald Reagan was credited for the defeat of the anti-gay “Briggs Initiative” back in the 1970s. Briggs would have banned gays from teaching school.

As far as social liberalism, I’m not sure how it’s made us “more free” given the epidemic social patholgies and crushing tax and debt burdens we face in the aftermath of the progressive era.

Myself, I’m ambivalent about lifting DADT given the mixed reports about troop attitudes. I don’t trust the military brass to tell the truth on this issue (remember the diversity manure extruded by General Casey after the Ft. Hood terrorist attack*) – the brass are addled by PC as much as anyone. If I’d been president, I’d have had Casey’s resignation within the hour.

A lot of deference should be given to the thoughts of actual combat troops (which are a relatively small segment of the military population).

Lifting the ban should be the goal but it’s shouldn’t be crammed down the throats of those on the battle lines in Iraq and Afghanistan.

* And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse. – Gen. George Casey after the cold-blooded killing of 13 people by an Islamist the Army had been previously warned about.

If repeal can be accomplished at no appreciable cost to the military’s ability to fight, then DADT should be repealed instantly. Otherwise it should not be repealed.

And that’s really what it’s all about.

Yes, that *IS* what it’s all about. And as I posted earlier, both the head of the Army and the head of the Marines are saying it CAN’T and both oppose repeal. Nor does the Pentagon report endorse or recommend repeal — it doesn’t.

Yet you ignore the opinions of the very “military brass” you SAID would shape your opinion, and push forward, saying its time for Harry Reid to stop dragging his feet so he can pass it already.

So I simply don’t understand why you pretend there are any reservations on your part. The brass in charge of virtually all of our boots on the ground have said no, the report doesn’t endorse repeal, and yet you push forward anyway. Why all that spin and phony posturing about waiting to see what the military brass said, and then ignoring what they said?

And where is GOProud reminding Republicans NOT to take up this social issue?

Nowhere, just as I predicted.

That’s what irks me so much. I knew all that posturing was phony, I knew GOProud had no intention of telling Republicans to oppose any of THEIR social issues, and I called you guys on it. And you assured me you were really more concerned about military readiness, while Bruce threw a hissy fit that I DARED call out GOProud’s hypocrisy….and here we are, with the head of the Marines and the head of the Army opposing repeal, and you’re still pushing repeal, and GOProud is still silent.

Just EXACTLY as I predicted.

The gay “right” pays a lot of lip service to conservatism, but when it comes right down to it, they’re just like the gay left — when it comes right down to it, the same gay agenda always wins out above all other considerations.

You also tend to rail about how evil Democrats are, yet is only they who made the repeal of DADT a possibility and you are fooling yourself if you don’t believe that.

The same democreeps who made DADT a possibility in the first place? Then they kicked gays in the teeth so they could be exploited for political gain, again the last time they talked of repeal and you’re a brain dead dumbass if you don’t believe that.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said “she would vote with Democrats to end the military’s ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, “, but not “until a debate over tax cuts has been resolved“.

She has the right priority (order of things), in accord with the recent GOProud / Tea Party letter urging McConnell and Boehner to “put forward a legislative agenda in the next Congress that reflects the principles of the Tea Party movement… non-partisan …, focused on issues of economic freedom and limited government”. The fiscal / Tea Party issues are more important.

That’s why you’re down to 20% of the electorate and had your asses handed to you. It wasn’t because you failed to get your “message” out. You got it out loud and clear. The people kept telling you “Hell no!”, but you gave the people the finger.

Why the hell are you so opposed to people keeping more of the money THEY earn?

“The gay “right” pays a lot of lip service to conservatism, but when it comes right down to it, they’re just like the gay left — when it comes right down to it, the same gay agenda always wins out above all other considerations.

Even in wartime.” American Elephant, that’s exactly the point I’ve been trying to make, not only with regards to DADT but to social issues generally. You made the point much better than I ever could.

Lori, if you think I don’t know the difference between libertarianism and social liberalism then please enlighten me. Of course you won’t and can’t because, when it comes to social issues, libertarians and social liberals are pretty much the same.

We’ve been through this before, Lori. As I understand it, libertarians believe government should stay almost totally out of people’s private lives. That means libertarians support gay marriage, for instance. But it also means that libertarians support things like legalizing drugs and possibly even polygamy. And since, Lori, you called yourself an “out and proud libertarian” I surmised that you must support things like legalizing drugs and polygamy, too. You responded by calling that “wacky”. So, it seems that you’re a libertarian only when it comes to homosexuality. Am I wrong?

If you take the deficit seriously as you all so frequently claim to do – how can any one of you justify tax cuts that will add billions to the deficit?

They won’t. What they will do, as TGC, is grow the economic pie and ultimately *increase* revenues.

Conversely, increasing taxes won’t raise revenues (except perhaps in the very short term – and if we’re very lucky). Repeat: For where we are now, TAX INCREASES DON’T IMPROVE REVENUES. To propose further tax increases as a way to improve revenues is like proposing a universal garlic benefit to get rid of witches. I.e. silly, stupid, ignorant.

Kindly google “Hauser’s Law” sometime. Taxing an economy is like making a donkey (the economy) carry a load. The U.S. economy can only bear to give about 19-20% to the Federal government. No matter how hard you try to go beyond that, it won’t happen. People will evade the increases (tax shelters and possibly black markets), or the economy will be devastated, or some combination.

Seane-Anna, you are either dishonest on the whole or not terribly bright. Not ALL libertarians take the same point of view on every pristinely-ideological libertarian issue.

You have a real thing about polygamy. Perhaps you’re a closeted jack-mormon harem wife.

I have explained my beliefs about polygamy in detail. I am not going to bother doing it again. It is very obvious that you don’t listen to anything anyone tells you, and that you merely loop right back into more of the Picasso riot-scene that perpetually threatens to break out in your head.

I am a libertarian on every general principle of how government should operate. That it should only perform the functions it can do better than private citizens — which amounts to little more than enforcement of laws against force and fraud and protection of our citizens from violence at the hands of others.

The drug war was a costly mistake — even more disastrous than Prohibition — but of course there must be laws against drugs.

People like you might take them. For all I know, that may be where your problems began.

Lori Lunatic, I’m not dishonest. I was making a statement about what libertarians generally believe, and you know that. The Democratic party generally supports big government social programs. Not every Democrat supports every such program, but it’s still true to say that support for big government social programs is a defining characteristic of Democrats.

Likewise, libertarians generally support radical personal liberty, which includes letting citizens decide for themselves what to put in their bodies or whom to put in their beds. Libertarians don’t all agree on how unrestricted personal freedom should be, but that doesn’t make it dishonest to say that support for radical personal liberty is a defining characteristic of libertarians. The problem for you Lori is that, except for homosexuality, you’re quite squeamish about following your libertarian principles to their logical conclusion. And that’s for you to deal with.

My opinion is that DADT should be repealed because I don’t that is has any effect either way if it is implemented or not. I don’t think that someone is open about their sexuality should be a prerequisite for whether than can serve in the military or it should be grounds for discharge if that come out while serving.

Also, I don’t understand why some people are against the repeal of DADT. Some people are trying to make this out to be a bigger thing that what it is. What I mean is that some people are trying to put this issue on the same level with same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption, and hate crime laws to try and create a bigger platform for that homosexual advocates to campaign on.

The fact of the matter is this law, while should be repealed, hasn’t hurt the military either. I think it would be naive for us to think that people don’t already know about another soldiers sexuality. For all we know half the military comprises of homosexuals. But people probably don’t discuss it because at the end of the day this is a job.

The last thing that we need to do is start politicizing the military like some in the homosexual left and social conservatives want to do. The fact the homosexual left don’t care about the military to want to join or keep up to date of what is going on when DADT is repeal. And the social conservatives aren’t going to not support the military anymore and join the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church.

“The problem for you Lori is that, except for homosexuality, you’re quite squeamish about following your libertarian principles to their logical conclusion.”

No, Seane-Anna. I am a normal person who does not think in childish, cartoon stereotypes.

Now you’re calling me a lunatic? I am finished talking with you. Without psychiatric help, you are not someone with whom any rational discussion is possible.

It would do no good to attempt to reason with you, as you only find something else to criticize and nit-pick about after that. I don’t care what you think, so your opinion does not matter. And others here will form their own views of you. Most of them already have.

Instead of calling other people lunatics, perhaps you yourself should get the psychiatric help you so desperately need.

Glenn, Personal liberty is radical to those with a statist mentality who think the government “gives” us our rights and “permits” us our freedoms. It truly was a radical concept at the time of the American Revolution, but I’m with you in being confused about why it should still be considered so radical over two hundred years later.

If I had time, it might be fun to root through some of the old GP comments about Scott Brown, from lefties. I seem to recall that he was supposed to be the next anti-gay Hitler or something, because he only accepted gay marriage as “settled law” in Massachussetts – rather than, say, loving it to the point where he’d have one.

Scott Brown is a RINO. He supported Massachussetts’s version of ObamaCare, whioch led to insurance premiums there to be the highest in the nation.

I don’t trust the military brass to tell the truth on this issue (remember the diversity manure extruded by General Casey after the Ft. Hood terrorist attack*) – the brass are addled by PC as much as anyone. If I’d been president, I’d have had Casey’s resignation within the hour.

General Petraeus had said about the proposed burning of the Quran that “Images of the burning of a Koran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan – and around the world – to inflame public opinion and incite violence”. why does not this same logic apply to repealing DADT and openly let homosexuals serve? (Although we should of course not craft military policy just to appease militant Islamist sand Nazis.)

Because the vast majority of people for repeal (admittedly not Dan) are arguing for it in terms of EQUALITY, not military readiness.

Hell, there are NO military organizations pushing for repeal, the groups pushing for repeal are almost exclusively civil rights and gay rights groups.

Civil rights and gay rights are social issues, not military issues.

And those who favor repeal are ALL outright ignoring the fact that the Pentagon Report says NOTHING about it improving readiness, unit cohesion and recruitment, but ADMITS that repeal will actually HARM readiness, cohesion, and recruitment (as I documented here). And they are also ignoring the top brass of the Army and Marines who have come out against repeal on precisely those grounds, and arguing that it should be done anyway.

Its hard to argue its a military issue when you’re ignoring the Pentagon report and Chiefs of the Army and Marines who all AGREE that repeal will harm the military right now, while we are at war.

Fairness and equality are not military issues.

There is still to this day NO REPORT that says repealing DADT will actually HELP military effectiveness — the very best supporters can do is a report that says they think they can compensate for the damage they admit it will do.

As I’ve said, my gay membership card and handbook got lost in the mail or something. What, exactly, is the “gay agenda”? Lot’s of folks who aren’t gay tend to pop off about it, but I’ve no idea what they’re talking about.

Because the vast majority of people for repeal (admittedly not Dan) are arguing for it in terms of EQUALITY, not military readiness.

I’m “bitching” at Dan because he said he would base his support of repeal on the Pentagon report that he admits he hasn’t read (which itself admits it will cause harm at least in the short term, and equivocates on the long term), and that he would also base his support on the opinions of the “military brass” — his words — yet the top brass of the Army and Marines — the two forces that make of the vast majority of troops on the ground — OPPOSE repeal, and he is pushing for it anyway.

Yet now he is pushing for Harry Reid to push repeal through when he admits he hasnt read the report, when I quoted parts of the report that admit repeal will cause problems right now, and when the military brass have come out in OPPOSITION to repeal.

hell, for that matter, I just noticed that he entirely mischaracterized the report by saying, in his headline, that the “Pentagon Report Favors gradual implementation of DADT Repeal” — which is an outright lie. There are zero words of endorsement anywhere in the report. The report says ONLY that they believe they can manage to MINIMIZE the damage *IF* congress passes repeal.

It seems pretty clear. I’m bitching at him because he has been thoroughly dishonest. The things he said he would base his support on REFUTE him, and yet he is pushing forward with support for repeal nonetheless.

Clear?

As for the gay agenda, perhaps I should call it the “gay community agenda”, or the “vast majority of gays agenda”, because there are apparently a dozen or so gays in the entire country that actually dont support it, but I think the “gay agenda” suffices, and right now the gay agenda is to repeal DADT and get the govenrment to declare that gay relationships are equal to straight relationships.

My thing is that I can’t see how kicking out perfectly capable soldiers for something so petty is in any way beneficial.

I’m not arguing that it IS beneficial. I’m arguing that it’s less harmful than having up to one-third of fighting forces leave the military (thats the number who have said they would or would seriously consider it) so that FIFTEEN percent of gays serving in the military — a tiny minority within a minority — who said they would serve openly can do so.

Just to be clear, lets say 2 percent of the military is gay, only fifteen percent of THAT low number has even said they have any desire to serve openly.

The potential loss of up to 30% of fighting troops vs. the potential loss of less than one percent of all troops.

Not to mention the upheaval that even Pentagon report admits would be caused is unacceptable, in my eyes, in the middle of two freaking wars, not to mention the general existential war on terrorism.

THOSE are the military issues.

The social conduct guidelines of a tiny minority of military personnel is a SOCIAL issue.

Guys, enjoy your arguments as to whether repeal of DADT is the right thing. I believe it is, but understand the arguments have already been made. Now’s the time for action.

If the Dems really do want repeal they must first extend the Bush tax cuts. That could be done by the end of the week if they are serious. Then, and only then, will Brown and the two Maine Senators vote aye on repeal. No filibuster, just an up or down vote, and ayes will have it.

So it’s time for the Dems to show us they really do want repeal, or if it’s merely a ploy to get gay support on the cheap.

Buy what? That one-third will leave? No, that’s how many said they either would leave or would seriously consider it. I don’t believe ALL of them will actually end up leaving, but I do believe, and the report tends to support my conclusion, that the number who will leave if DADT is repealed will significantly outnumber the number who are let go because of DADT.

I’d also point out that Ben Miller at Pajama’s Media agrees with my reading of the report — as do the Chiefs of the Army and Marines,which, one would think, are a bit more substantial than anything the gay rights groups pushing for repeal have presented as justification.

The arguments are actually BEING made, right here. But as to whether or not the bill will actually pass this congress, I agree with Ed Morrissey who pointed out that there really isn’t time.

Even IF the Senate can agree on and pass a tax compromise in time to do anything else, Democrats will have to CHOOSE between a totally symbolic effort to pass the Dream Act — which has NO actual chance of passing, and a vote on repealing DADT — which actually would stand a chance of passing….but I believe as Morrissey does that even if they had the time, Democrats would pointlessly pander to hispanics before they would pander to gays.

And keep in mind, TGC, when I say up to one third of fighting forces, I mean actual combat troops. The numbers who oppose repeal are MUCH higher among actual combat troops (the most important group to consider in my opinion) than they are among non-combat troops with fully 60 PERCENT of marine combat troops opposing repeal.

What’s more, I can’t figure out why you’ve chosen to be a huge dick. If Dan is really such a damnable liar, I know I wouldn’t stick around. You know where the proverbial door is and, I’m guessing, you know other blogs where you can get a hand job no questions asked.

You’ll forgive me, but I’m not usually inclined to worry when a kid says he’s gonna hold his breath unless he gets his way.

Well the Pentagon Report, and the heads of the Army and Marines disagree with you. Forgive me, but I’ll go with them.

What’s more, I can’t figure out why you’ve chosen to be a huge dick. If Dan is really such a damnable liar, I know I wouldn’t stick around. You know where the proverbial door is

Translation: you have nothing, so I should leave for daring to disagree, backing up my arguments, with the hosts and disagreeing with the hosts, and insisting that they explain why the evidence refutes their position is “being a dick”.

By the way, TGC, did you actually READ the piece at Pajama’s media that agrees with everything I’ve been saying about the report? Did you actually read the Statements of the Marine and Army chiefs who reiterate what I said? Have you even read the Pentagon report?

I think you and I both know you haven’t.

I suppose they are all dicks too?

Holy cow, you sound like the liberals who come here claiming we are betraying gays.

If Dan and Bruce are going to make arguments, write posts, sign letters, and in Dans case claim he is going to base his conclusions on things that then refute his conclusions, they OUGHT to be mature enough to DEFEND those positions.

But it does seem more and more like disagreeing with the hosts is verboten around here. Particularly if you’re right.

TGC, I was just remembering when Bush was President. We had a lot of Bush-hating left-wing commentors who claimed it was not allowed to “dissent” in the U.S., and that their “dissent” against Bush was therefore brave. Of course in reality, their dissent was completely allowed, making them posers who had merely picked a very very safe target for their dumping.

Translation: you have nothing, so I should leave for daring to disagree, backing up my arguments, with the hosts and disagreeing with the hosts, and insisting that they explain why the evidence refutes their position is “being a dick”.

Grow up.

The point isn’t that you have a disagreement and you have “evidence” to refute anything. The point is that almost everytime you come along, you come charging in like a blazing asshole (just like the liberals) and try to pick a fight with someone.

You can’t fight ILC anymore (that was f*king weak), so now you’ve turned your sights on Dan. I don’t know who shoved a burr up your ass, but you haven’t always been this way that I recall. Dunno about many of the others, but I’m tired of your attitude and you know of at least two others who are as well.

Don’t know what your problem is, but I highly recommend you grab your gear and get yourself squared away pretty damn quick or find a blog that will put up with your shit. And that’s friendly advice. Do with it what you will, but don’t come in here attacking folks like that Doops POS or the other sock puppets.

Actually TLC, you have had YOUR comments deleted on this blog FAR more times than I have, indeed, you have had your comments deleted far more than ANYONE from what I’ve seen, so your claiming I am being a dick is rather laughable. Indeed, you’re the ONLY one calling names and hurling insults.

Dan said he was going to base his decision about repeal on a report that he admits he hasn’t read, and on the decisions of military brass that he now disagrees with. He then did the exact opposite of that, and I called him on it. That’s not being a dick, that’s being honest and demanding the same of others.

And yes, it’s absolutely about evidence. I would never even start to disagree with someone if I didn’t have evidence. Debate is ALWAYS about evidence. I would never dare accuse someone of lying unless I could back it up thoroughly. Just as I did with Mr “marriage is a right, but a marriage license isnt”!

The point is that almost everytime you come along, you come charging in like a blazing asshole (just like the liberals) and try to pick a fight with someone.

Really? Are you serious? Um, project much? TLC, do you do anything here EXCEPT insult people and pick fights??? It’s all I’ve ever seen you do.

I regularly agree with Dan and Bruce when I think they make good points, I congratulate them on their successes when they tell us about them, I just complimented Bruce on a cool graph he posted earlier in the night, and just wished Dan a Happy Hanukkah the other day. I’ve complimented Bruce’s home and enjoyed his labs, being a former lab owner myself. But when i think they’re wrong, I also tell them so.

I’ve agreed with them both many, many times, and said so, and I disagree with them ONCE and Mr “Marriage is a right, but a marriage license isnt” MONTHS ago and suddenly I’m a dick charging around like an asshole, who does nothing but pick fights!

Please. Go pigpile on Ash some more. It’s been what? 5 minutes?

Dunno about many of the others, but I’m tired of your attitude and you know of at least two others who are as well.

Don’t know what your problem is, but I highly recommend you grab your gear and get yourself squared away pretty damn quick or find a blog that will put up with your shit. And that’s friendly advice.

A very ominous sounding threat.

I certainly HOPE you’re not talking about Bruce and Dan, because that would speak very poorly of them indeed.

but don’t come in here attacking folks like that Doops POS or the other sock puppets.

I am not “attacking” anyone. And until you started in telling me what a dick I am for doing so, I was not insulting anyone.

Dan said something that I disagree with. I am disagreeing with him. He also said he was going to do two things, and then did exactly the opposite, and I called him on it. That’s not attacking him, its not insulting him, its calling him to account. Its principled, honest disagreement, with facts, sources, and links to back up every word.

THAT is what has your panties in a bunch, and THAT is what got Bruce’s panties in a bunch last week when he accused me of “childish MSNBC gotcha tactics”….you’re upset that I’m disagreeing with the WRONG SIDE and doing so with solid arguments.

Look, you’re obviously very loyal to your friends which has undoubtedly scored you brownie points. You came here for a clique where you could beat up on gay lefties together, and while I enjoy insulting liberals as much as the next guy, thats not the reason I come here. Nor is this cliquish behavior, that’s really very unappealing. I came here to talk politics, and agree and disagree when necessary with people. I do both.

If that’s not welcome here, perhaps Bruce and Dan should tell me how to disagree with them in ways they WILL approve of, and actually respond by showing where I’m wrong instead of hurling insults.

Or is this just a little girlish clique where its not about ideas and facts, but about right sides and wrong sides?

I’ve had persistent disagreements with our hosts, Bruce/Dan on certain issues. I’m trying to remember any disagreement where I’ve resorted to attacks on their character, when I couldn’t persuade them on the issue; like implying that one of them is dishonest, lacking maturity, etc. Um, still trying. Or where I’ve kept up a series of demands that Bruce/Dan respond to my charges, i.e. pay me attention. I may exaggerate my importance sometimes, but I don’t know if I’ve ever thought I was *that* important.

I’ve probably done those things to some wacky commentors. But just wacky commentors, and in a lighter way (not really expecting anything).

Getting back on topic for a second… Good for Brown on announcing his decision. Senator Brown is starting to sound like a… like a… m-o-d-e-r-a-t-e? How long before the farRighters in our brave new world label him a RINO or sell out or progressive?

I’m betting if it isn’t this issue of DADTDHDP repeal, it’ll surely be the next issue he parts company with the great farRight purity testers and RINO-hood gets plastered on his great looking backside.

“Brown for President” has a nice ring for the 2012 primary races. I wonder if he was born in the US… I wonder if his grammar school report cards are in order… can we find out if he slept at any point in a car while homeless… any secret society memberships while in college? Thank God we know he’s not a wiccan.

How long before the farRighters in our brave new world label him a RINO

Keep up with the thread, MM. A commentor already did that at #40. Heck, some were doing it back when Brown was elected. Personally, I always took a realistic view of Brown: he’s an MA Republican, a guy who supported the disaster known as Romneycare; “so be it”, in the sense that I do not get to decide what he is.

Dr. Laura kicked off her show with a four-minute rant against the policy, saying “when someone wishes to volunteer for relatively low pay and high danger to protect you and me, I say, ‘Thank you and huzzah.’”

She continues, “This business of being concerned about whether or not a person is gay is utterly ridiculous, in my opinion. Homosexuals have served in our military since we’ve had our ragtag guys in the forest dealing with Indians in the British …

“In my opinion, neither color nor sexual orientation should bar anyone from fighting for their country nor should it deter them from being part of the band of brothers.”

The talk-show host even goes so far as to debunk some of the myths antigay politicians use to argue for the continuation of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” She says gay men aren’t turned on by every straight man they see, and that straight guys who think they do should get their egos in check

Although there are various sound-bites that supporters and opponents can latch onto from the past two days of testimony, there is one thing on which all of the Chiefs agree: that legislative repeal will be far less disruptive than a judicial decision ending the policy. And they have good reason to fear just such a decision.

The ONLY defense provided by the Department of Defense in Log Cabin v. the US was that Congress was going to repeal the policy and that they should be allowed to do so. Should Congress fail to take such action, then there is no argument whatsoever that the government has left to make in the appeal to Log Cabin’s victory.

And Log Cabin will not play nice with the administration. They will undoubtedly file with the appeals court that the appeal be tossed out and that, at the very least, the current hold on the injunction be lifted. The Department of Defense can hardly claim a likelihood of success in the courts if they have nothing at all on which to base their defense.

There is a very real possibility that if Congress declines to enact a plan to roll out a gradual repeal, the courts could end the policy immediately. And while McCain would rather play Curmudgeon in Chief, those who care about defense policy should carefully consider the consequences of inaction.

And Log Cabin will not play nice with the administration. They will undoubtedly file with the appeals court that the appeal be tossed out and that, at the very least, the current hold on the injunction be lifted. The Department of Defense can hardly claim a likelihood of success in the courts if they have nothing at all on which to base their defense.

Only last night I had dinner with two very good friends, both decorated combat veterans of Vietnam — and both gay. It is laughable that either of them would ever have been thought “bad for morale.”

Part of what military service has always done has been to “put fuzz on the kiwis,” as Frank Barone said on “Everybody Loves Raymond.” Being a man or a woman — instead of merely a very large boy or girl — means learning to get along with, work with and serve with all sorts of different people, many of whom you will not like, will not agree with, and will upset you in one way or another.

That’s life. Learn and profit from the experience. Or as Frank might say, “Get off the pity-pot, Nancy.”

It is especially interesting how so many social conservatives call getting rid of a dishonest policy “social engineering.” Social engineering is exactly what “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was in the first place.

The social right is only a mirror-image of the statist Left. But because it claims to oppose the Left — and to offer something different — it is, in a way, even more shabby and pathetic.

Social conservatives are a mirror image of the statist Left? Well, will Miss Out-And-Proud-Libertarian please explain to us why it’s “statist” if a social conservative like me opposes legalized gay marriage or the repeal of DADT but it’s NOT statist for a “libertarian” like her to oppose legalized polygamy or drugs? Is “statism” evident only in an unwillingness to participate in or facilitate the normalizing of homosexuality? Why don’t you enlighten us, Miss Out-And-Proud?

And until you started in telling me what a dick I am for doing so, I was not insulting anyone.

Except that you did.

(If history is any indication, Dan will now conveniently stop replying to comments in this thread.)

Nope. No assholishness there. After all, you backed it up with evi…..oh wait. You didn’t. Here’s another:

you have had YOUR comments deleted on this blog FAR more times than I have, indeed, you have had your comments deleted far more than ANYONE from what I’ve seen,

Never happened to my knowledge. Maybe a few days later after everyone has moved to another thread. Caught in filters, yes. Deleted, no. Nor have I ever received an request from Bruce or Dan asking to knock it off, unlike you. Did get a request from Bruce to write here, but I was busy enough with my own at the time and I was happy just to be a commenter.

Who, pray tell, is “us,” Seane-Anna? You and the little voices in your head?

I suppose you didn’t see Gay Patriot’s admonition to us to stop squabbling. I saw it with great relief. I am sick of trying to reason with you and no longer intend to bother.

Go argue with yourself. No one else can have a reasonable conversation with you anyway. I’m not sure why you have such a fixation with arguing with me, when many other commenters here have also expressed disagreement with you. I must have really hit a nerve.

I sympathize with you (not just as a “true libertarian”) but as you try to deal with doomsdayers like Seane-Anne… Although I do appreciate her presence in essence to prove to Dan, Bruce, et al. of what the MAJORITY of conservatives think of them.

“Muslims are calling for the executions of homosexuals in America. This just shows you they themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible of the Judeo-Christian God, but they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do, because these people are livid about enforcing their laws. They know homosexuality is an abomination.”

These are the same so-cons that promote wacky conspiracy theories that the invasive TSA airport pat-downs are part of the “evil gay agenda” in a scheme for the “gay TSA” to get off and masturbate.

“It’s the federal employee’s version of the Gay Bill of Special Rights… That means the next TSA official that gives you an ‘enhanced pat down’ could be a practicing homosexual secretly getting pleasure from your submission,”…

Indeed so-cons never take these issues (as INVASIVE TSA tactics at airports) seriously as they have a selfish need to inject their perverted anecdotes to promote their own version of invasive government. Maybe they would prefer straight TSA agents instead of getting rid off these tactics altogether.

But of course they won’t stop there, they will continue to peddle homophobic fear based rhetoric to get control of government, either by promoting the idea that “the government is under satanic rule from the gays,” or either wacky, unsabstantiated, vitriol.

So yes, discussing these issues, either DADT, libertarianism – (which is now being labeled by so-cons as “radical personal liberty” and to be honest this is a clear sign that so-cons LOATH self-governance and independent individualism, a scary finding, but one that is popular among so-cons and the religious right) – with someone like Seane-Anne will only lead to frustration, incoherence, contradictions, … basically you feel like you are talking to a lib, they will not listen because they have an ulterior motive and that is to get in control of the government and impose their version of morality.

JS, I agree with you. I, too, have figured Seane-Anna out. She wants to get people chasing a hundred issues around at once, like distracted dogs after rabbits. It wouldn’t really matter what we said about these issues anyway. If we expressed exactly the same opinion as her own, she’d change it just to disagree with us.

I have no time for that. It isn’t a good idea for people with real things to do to feed trolls. And of course she has ulterior motives. Fortunately, many people are discovering what her motives, and those of all her sort, really are.

She is clearly frustrated to distraction — and this is why. But it’s great news for the rest of us.

1. “I suppose you didn’t see Gay Patriot’s admonition to us to stop squabbling. I saw it with great relief.”

Lori, GP told us to, “Knock off the personal attacks”, not to “stop squabbling”. Just another instance of you reading your own views into someone else’s comments. And you didn’t care what GayPatriot said anyhow because his comment was #36 and guess what comment #37 was? Another attack on me from you! So much for pretending to respect GP’s authority.

2. “I am sick of trying to reason with you…”

Reason with me?! What a hoot! When have you ever tried to reason with me? Lori, you’ve done nothing but hurl insults at me and call me names. You’ve blatantly lied about what I’ve said on this blog, accusing me of calling people here evil when you know I did no such thing! You’ve tried to smear me by calling me everything from a closet gay to a “right-wing socialist nut”. You’ve questioned my sanity. Mean-spirited mockery and ridicule have been the essence of your response to me.

Perhaps mocking, ridiculing, smearing, and lying about people equates to reasoning with them in Loriland, but in the real world it’s just hateful histrionics, which seems to be all you’re capable of.

I did? Where? The comment you posted isnt even FROM this thread, which really proves my point, and not yours. Nor was I calling anyone names, which also proves my point and not yours. I made an observation that someone else then agreed with. SO again, where are the “attacks” and name calling I made in this thread –before you started calling me a dick and and asshole, that have your panties so in a bunch?

After all, you backed it up with evi…..oh wait. You didn’t.

How do you link to a comment that doesn’t exist? Do you want me to link to all the times I have challenged Dan, and he has not responded? Should I post the entire threads in a quote so that you can then read through all the comments to verify that there is nothing there? Because I most certainly can. Yes, it was a bit confrontational, but I had been pointing out the contradiction for a LONG time, with citations, and Dan never once responded until I DID confront him like that. Again, like I said, I dont make charges I can’t back up.

you have had YOUR comments deleted on this blog FAR more times than I have

Never happened to my knowledge. Maybe a few days later after everyone has moved to another thread. Caught in filters, yes. Deleted, no.

Deleted, yes. And not after anyone had moved on. Right in the middle of the discussions:

And those are just from the first page of 6 pages of Google results. Now, they were not all yours by any means, but that’s already far more than the one comment I had deleted.

Like I said, I try very hard not to say things I cant back up.

So you and I clearly have two very different definitions of being a dick.

I think being a dick is calling someone a dick and an asshole and other names for pointing out falsehoods, and calling people to account when they do the opposite of what they said they were going to do.

Like a very good “mama grizzly”, you apparently think being a dick is doing the latter when it means disagreeing with the wrong people.

So why don’t YOU tell ME the right way to point out the following, without being an asshole or a dick:

1. Dan said he was going to base his decision on whether he would support repeal on the Pentagon report and on the military brass.

5. Even though the Chiefs of the Army and Marines (who oversee virtually ALL of the combat troops on the ground) OPPOSE repeal.

That’s pretty much exactly how I made the point above, but why don’t you enlighten me. How can I ask Dan to explain why he would so something, and then did not do it, without being a dick?

PLEASE! Show me the correct way to say it so I can actually get a response explaining what seems to be a blatant contradiction without being called a dick and an asshole, by you, and a childish MSNBC gotcha tactics by Bruce.

Because I really want to know! I think its a perfectly valid point. If its not a valid point, tell me why its not.

Or is it, as I suspect, that it is actually the ACT of calling the wrong people to account for their seeming contradictions that is what you and Bruce have attacked me for?

“But Seane-Anne is just one of many so-cons (right wing satists) who advocate and agree with Islamofasicts in executing gay people: ”

Ok, nimrod. Just where did I ever say I agreed with the execution of gay people? Come on, JS. You made the accusation, back it up. You know you can’t. You just want to indulge your hatred of social conservatives, but in your haste to do so you don’t seem to realize that you’re just proving the point I’ve made several times before: that there’s a move to inject social liberals’ hatred of traditionalists into conservatism thereby depriving traditionalists of a voice in the culture. Just keep proving me right, JS.

And I know I’m most likely wasting my time but I’ll ask anyway: Lori and JS, just what do you mean by “statist”? It seems to me that you two use the term simply as a slur against anyone with traditional attitudes toward homosexuality.

But Seane-Anne is just one of many so-cons (right wing satists) who advocate and agree with Islamofasicts in executing gay people:

Therefore, since the actions of one person can be generalized to all, Bradley Manning indicates that all gay and lesbian troops are actually traitors who want to get their fellow soldiers killed in the name of leftist dogma.

But Seane-Anne is just one of many so-cons (right wing satists) who advocate and agree with Islamofasicts in executing gay people:

Therefore, since the actions of one person can be generalized to all, Bradley Manning indicates that all gay and lesbian troops are actually traitors who want to get their fellow soldiers killed in the name of leftist dogma.

LOL, What is this world coming to? Now NDT is lecturing us on GENERALIZATIONS. Okay. ROLTFLOL.

Sorry NDT… I guess I been reading your comments for too long. Got the NDT syndrome.

This is Gay Patriot. So expect more of it. I mean I’m already used to being called a leftist, pedophile, a pot-head (for being libertarian) a gay sex liberal, a terrorist, a muslim, a member of the KKK, a Nazi…

Ok, nimrod. Just where did I ever say I agreed with the execution of gay people? Come on, JS. You made the accusation, back it up.

Nimrod?

I thought Bruce told you to play nice… eh but I ‘m not surprised by your childish reactions to SOUND accusations that I made against YOUR SIDE (not just you personally). Now if you need more evidence of wacky so-cons foaming at the mouth, calling for gay people to be exterminated or “quarantined” in special camps, please ask and I will provide you with more things to read.

But obviously you will dismiss all of this and will focus on me and in your weird warped mind of yours you then cry out that I am trying to shut you up, which is of course not so. Instead I want you and your side to continue to speak, so as to expose the really depraved and perverted nature of your movement that hides besides the facade of “family values.”

And of course it gets even funnier:

Just keep proving me right, JS.

Still, I am trying to understand what it is you are trying to prove? Again, I don’t want so-cons to “shut-up” quite the contrary I went them to speak more and more as they have already have so that you yourself can see how unpopular your views (which are to attack gay people not about protecting anybody’s family) are becoming with the overall public.

The way I see it, you are just mad that I exposed how perverted and deranged your side is, and now you are making your first amendment right an issue. LOL. Pathetic.

I do recall that AE at first declared the DADT Report invalid because it was “politically motivated” As far as that conspiracy theory goes, I don’t think it holds water.

Then I chuckled as AE used the SAME report that he condemns to argue against repeal of DADT (only citing a couple of pages may I add). Now I know Dan and Bruce have been caught being hypocritical at times, but come on AE, just say you are against DADT repeal no matter what (a la McCain)…

The way you have been behaving on this issue being hypocritical over the use of said report makes your whole argument (and your opinion) about DADT moot at least with me.

All the drama-king antics here inspired me to check out some old comments. It was fun.

For rusty: You’ve been around the blog for a couple years now, which is pretty cool. People often don’t agree with your opinions, but it seems like you’ve learned to work with it. One thing I found to regret in my perusal of old comments is when I joined in some early bashing of you. I apologize.

Other than that, I found little to regret I’ve had conflicts with certain individuals, they were fun, and I can stand by nearly everything I said in them.

NDT and Seane-Anna both have you by the short hairs here (Make sure to wash your hands after you let go of JS, folks! No one knows where he’s been.)

Using your ‘standards’, since you’re willing to implicate Seane-Anna for the statements of others, then you must accept that you want to bugger small children, since that’s the policy goal of NAMBLA and your democratic leaders (Pelosi, Jennings) have stood shoulder to shoulder with their membership.

Seane-Anna may, like me, prefer her own beliefs and moral upbringing be the values the nation shares. Unfortunately, she, like you, seems to feel the state should enforce those values.

You’re both wrong.

Perhaps that’s the most amusing thing about the hatred of Glenn Beck evidenced by some. In his call for restoring honour and emulating the values of the founders, he’s not calling for Government to enforce it. Simply for people to live their lives and for the state to get the frak out of the way.

I am gay and served in the Army for a little over a year, including 7 months of active duty. I spent almost all that time among enlisted ranks, not officers, and was under the command of combat or combat-related, high-risk branches. I’m not a lifer but I saw enough to know a few things worth sharing.

The law as it stands is no way something that needs urgent change. The war efforts are more important. The most important thing is for the gay community to examine its obsession with this issue.

While you and your fellow junior high school girl twitter away and high-five eachother about what a dick I am for asking hard questions, I notice you CANT answer how I could have better asked that question without being labeled a dick by the girlish little clique.

Which rather conceded the point. As I already knew.

Because the only available answer is that there was nothing wrong with the question other than it shows Dan did not do what he said he would. It shows that when Dan said the findings of the report, and the views of the military brass would influence his opinion, he was paying complete lip service, because he formed his opinion having admitted he hasn’t read it, and in complete contradiction to the views of the Chiefs of the Army and Marines.

If that makes me a dick in your eyes, I can totally live with that. The fact that you think so makes you an enormously childish crybaby in my eyes for thinking that calling people to account for contradicting themselves makes me a dick or an asshole.

“Waaah! How DARE you ask the wrong side to account!” But I digress. Seriously, how incredibly childish!

But the fact remains that Dan refuses to account for contradicting himself even now that I sent him an email yesterday asking him to take my email out of the filter, and at the same time pointing out, so he could not pretend he hadn’t seen it — as I have pointed out is a common tactic of his — that he is avoiding a perfectly valid question because it makes him look bad.

Please! Can someone point me to where the real men are? Cus real men actually own up to it when they’ve been caught contradicting themselves. And real men dont attack people for asking valid questions.

But I wont hold my breath for anyone to man up or grow up. Its clear your stiletto heels are dug deeply in on this one.

I do recall that AE at first declared the DADT Report invalid because it was “politically motivated” As far as that conspiracy theory goes, I don’t think it holds water.

Don’t take my word for it, JS, you can read the quotes from the actual report I cited and linked to which SHOWED the report did not say what people claimed it said. Or you can take the word of Pajama’s Media, that agreed with my assessment of it, in a piece they called

Then I chuckled as AE used the SAME report that he condemns to argue against repeal of DADTz

I didnt condemn the report. I said it was being used to mislead people, and that people were being told it said things that it didnt say. I then ferreted out the political CYA language, and the media’s misrepresentations to show what the report actually DOES say. Gee! Who would have ever thought that people might try to lie about the facts of what a report actually said! No wonder you chuckled! CUs that NEVER happens!

The way you have been behaving on this issue being hypocritical over the use of said report makes your whole argument (and your opinion) about DADT moot at least with me.

Nice try. But as I just showed, there is nothing hypocritical at all about showing how a report doesnt say what people are claiming it says.

Now can we PLEASE actually get to the issue at hand, which is why Dan said he would use this report and the military brass’ recommendations to form his opinion when he admits he didnt?

And an arrogant ass at that. I sent Dan an e-mail about a week ago and haven’t received a response. Haven’t seen much of him, actually. I would imagine that he’s quite busy with his dissertation to answer his e-mails and WAY too busy to address your pissing and moaning.

You keep rubbing one out to the “views of the Chiefs of the Army and Marines”, but you never mention the views of Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. James Cartwright or Navy Adm. Roughead or Coast Guard Adm. Papp. Further, you’ve completely ignored the fact that ALL of them have said that if DADT is repealed, they can and will deal with it. Wonder why.

You just keep getting more and more unhinged and disappointing as you go along. It’s just sad.

Imagine how much drama could have been avoided if Dan had the testicular fortitude to own up to his own contradictions instead of hiding behind his girls as they attack me personally instead of addressing the very valid point I raised to begin with. It was valid then, it remains valid now.

How embarrassing that this blog apparently doesn’t welcome real challenges. Apparently they want only to preach to a nodding choir.

Because the Marines and the Army, unlike the Coast Guard are in charge of all the boots on the ground.

If you had read the links I linked to, or the piece by Pajamas Media, instead of deciding I was an ass BEFORE and then going from there, you would have

1) asked that question about three days ago, and
2) known that it is the COMBAT troops that are MOST opposed to repeal.

But of course you hadnt read any of that before you shot your mouth off, as you and I both know. Which really is the problem isnt it!

And funny, but I wrote Dan yesterday, and got an email response back yesterday, AND Dan has also written several posts since then, AND this occurred over the weekend. AND its not like it takes a long time to write a response.

Now do quit being such a little Heather, and let Dan speak for himself.

And yes, I can be quite arrogant at times, I try not to be, but I admit I sometimes slip when little girls are attacking me personally for asking questions that I know are perfectly reasonable, perfectly valid questions.

Now please go away little girl, you have made this FAR more dramatic than it ever should have been.

And yet you and the other girls keep coming back TGC, so I guess you dont forget, do you?

Yet another argument blown out of the water.

That’s ok, I can see that if anyone around here is going to be man enough to concede anything, it will have to be me.

So I concede that I was absolutely wrong for being so mean, cruel, uncivil, out-of line, hateful, “dickish” and “assholish” to ask Dan why he said he would base his opinion on a report he admits he hasnt read, and on opinions of the very military brass who at the very least do NOT support repeal during wartime, but only say they think they can manage to limit the risks, and those of the Army and Marine brass who oppose repeal in the middle of three wars.

It was completely wrong of me to ask such a clearly unfair, mean, invalid, and completely unreasonable question.

Not at issue seems to be the miniscule % of U.S. military gays:
1) Forsake any opportunity to speak of their private lives and/or resort to creating a fictional life whenever anyone in the military inquires of their private life. (Why aren’t you married yet? Don’t you have a girlfriend? Let’s not pretend these questions don’t get asked. And why is that then censorship is encouraged?)
2) That are a security risk
3) Or ultimately discharged and their service/expertise is lost

Let’s say that none of that matters. (I’m willing too.)

It seems like what matters most is what % of the military would leave the military earlier than planned, what % of potential recruits wouldn’t enlist, the added stress of assimilating the policy, etc, if DADT were repealed. How real/imagined are these fears is the most important question. This thread doesn’t seem to address that very question.

The majority of the top military brass voicing these concerns ultimately support the repeal.

We’re in a war with no end-game in sight with troop casualties on the rise since inception. This is a military issue, first. But, it’s affected by socially conditioned stereotypes, that would only be perpetuated by the current policy.

Vince, fair points. Here is pretty much everything I have to say about the topic.

1) I’m not an expert. I’m willing to defer to the experts.
2) There are experts on both sides, which makes it harder to decide.
3) I don’t want to mess up the military.
4) And yet, a lot of the fears expressed in favor of keeping DADT side do sound like objections voiced in the past against other changes, that have not been the end of the military. If the military can handle women, it can handle gays.
5) From what I understand, DADT repeal would not only end the drumming-out of certain dedicated/talented folks, it would close a door that some *straights* use to, in effect, desert.
6) It’s possible that different branches, and/or different military specialities, would/should reach different answers on this.

Those points are somewhat at variance with each other and I don’t come to any huge conclusion, except: Let the military figure it out, over time.

70% of the military chose not to fill out the survey. Does not at least SOME portion of that statistic suggest an apathy/complacency one way or the other?

When we vote, do we not surrender any legitimacy behind any complaints/reactions we have about the results? If openly gay servicemen are such a potential detriment to unit cohesion during wartime, would one not take the opportunity to voice their opinion when given the opportunity?

Do we buckle under the threat of homophobia (which is what this boils down to) by rewarding those who didn’t exercise their freedom of speech (the survey)? And if the majority of those that did have a problem with the repeal did fill out the survey, are not their percentages dwarfed by the fact that 70% of the military didn’t fill the survey out? Wouldn’t that turn the 60% of the guys on the frontline against the repeal into something like 18%?

Oh, and something anecdotal: My nephew enlisted last year in the Marines reserve. Finished boot camp in Jan, rifle school a couple months later (naturally). I can tell you that gays are not on his radar, as an issue one way or the other. I can tell you that DADT repeal would have made NO difference to him whatever in his decision to enlist, none, nada, zilch. His decision was driven by other factors. If you were to ask him if DADT repeal or the (known) presence of gays in his unit would make him less likely to enlist, he would look at you like you’re from the Moon – because he just isn’t thinking about such questions.

Jesus H. I don’t know whether to laugh or just shake my head. It just gets sadder and sadder.

Yes, you do get sadder and sadder and you dont know what to do because the fact remains that my question was perfectly reasonable and valid one from the start.

And hundreds of posts later you are still doing your very best to save face by grasping at ANYTHING you can to insinuate otherwise.

Including posting even more emails from Dan, that show he not only had time to write me emails, and post comments in other threads but also had time to write other emails explaining why he didnt have time to write a response here.

A whole hell of a lot of time and effort going into explaining why he doesnt have the time to answer a valid question.

Ahhh yes, but its NOT a valid question, its a mean, nasty, unfair, unreasonable, childish, MSNBC gotcha dick question!

And Heather, Heather and Heather here are brave and just and oh so manly for protecting Dan from having to answer such a wicked, mean-spirited question.

You are misunderstanding the debate. The debate is not whether DADT should be repealed, but why Dan said he would base his decision on the Pentagon Report, and the opinions of the military brass — but then came out urging Harry Reid to pass repeal even though he admitted he hasn’t read the report, and even thought the Brass in charge of ALL the combat troops, oppose the repeal.

That seems pretty important to me in the middle of three wars.

I have been suggesting for some time that Dan’s behavior has betrayed his rhetoric, and that he was going to support repeal no matter what, and he continued to tell me the report would play an important role, as would the military brass — but now he has gone right ahead and pushed for repeal having admitted he hasnt read it, and with Pajama’s Media confirming my reading that the report does NOT say what people are claiming it does.

and Heather and Heather here have been blasting me, in fashion worthy of Little Green Footballs, for DARING to ask Dan to explain the contradiction between his words and his actions.

TGC claims its because the way I asked made me an asshole and a dick, but he refuses to show how I could have phrased the question in a way that wouldn’t be “dickish” — because in truth, my question has been perfectly reasonable from the outset.

In other words, the last two days of scratching and hissing has been Heather and Heather there trying to save face for challenging a perfectly reasonable question based on WHO was challenged, not WHAT the challenge was.

You see, if you challenge the wrong SIDE at Gay Patriot, you risk getting kicked out of the club!

because the fact remains that my question was perfectly reasonable and valid one from the start.

Hey, asshole, I never said that it wasn’t and you damn well know it. I made a friendly suggestion to be more respectful in disagreeing with your hosts. I also suggested that you used to be better than that, but it appears from your snit fit that I was wrong.

Including posting even more emails from Dan, that show he not only had time to write me emails, and post comments in other threads but also had time to write other emails explaining why he didnt have time to write a response here.

I did no such thing. So much for your fact checking.

A whole hell of a lot of time and effort going into explaining why he doesnt have the time to answer a valid question.

I mentioned it ONCE.

Ahhh yes, but its NOT a valid question, its a mean, nasty, unfair, unreasonable, childish, MSNBC gotcha dick question!

Who said it wasn’t? Now you’re showing that your pissed at Bruce.

Little Green Footballs has nothing on you girls!

Beats being a KOShole-esque lying sack of shit. If nobody responds to you, it’s your own damn fault. You may now take any future hysterical rants and shove them in your crack sideways.

Again, I’ve had my disagreements with our hosts, Bruce/Dan. I’m still trying to come up with an incident where I attacked one of them character-wise, after failing to persuade him on the issue. If I ever did, I don’t think I followed up by expecting him to make my attacks a priority in his life.

Perhaps I’m naive and have high hopes of the intelligence of the common soldier. But given that there’s already gays in the military, and everybody knows it, I can’t see how changing the rules to prohibit firing them would really make a whole helluva lot of difference.

Seriously, I think the concern isn’t the the Average Gay Joe being open and out. He has enough sense to make it a non-issue. It’s the AuntiDogma types who would be disruptive then whine about discrimination when he’s nailed to the wall by a superior.

I beleive there’s a case NDT cited where the woman was sleeping with another officer’s wife (breaking various rules about adultry) and when she was busted, complained she was busted for being gay. Bad apples spoiling the bunch and all that.

I wish to comment only that Scott Brown’s 31 years of service has been in the National Guard rather than active duty. I find his usage a bit disingenuous. I’m not even sure if the junior Senator has much experience in this particular subject.

Or at least I presumed this thread was about Sen. Brown’s comments…rather than an orgy of name-calling. Reminds of what my mother told me about the Republican Party based upon her watching Barry Goldwater’s campaign. She remarked that most Republican discussions ultimately devolved into a fight about who was more Republican (or Conservative).

Can’t access the link at work, but I fail to see what existing cases of (alleged) rape mean to my point.

I’m talking about a case where part of the UCMJ was broken, and the person then whines they’re being persecuted for being gay. In NDT’s link, again, IIRC, she didn’t deny adultery. Her defence was that she was being punished not for committing the infraction, but because she was gay. For laws to work, they need to be applied equally. She was saying that she shouldn’t be punished.

There are going to be bad apples. But, your “concern” suggests an all-encompassing end-result. It sounds to me like you’re suggesting that unit cohesion will be comprised solely by the “AuntiDogma” types. Or, at the least, they will compromise the majority of those compromising unit cohesion.

My point is that the concern of the repeal’s effect on unit cohesion has little to do with the bad apples (as alluded to earlier). It has a lot to do with how the homophobia would play out.

The link I posted provides statistics on sexual crimes in the military. The bulk of which, I would imagine, aren’t those who cry wolf. (i.e. like an AuntiDogma type)

Please provide NDT’s link, if you can. Thanks. Are you talking about someone like Margaret Witt? She had an affair with a civilian, so she can’t be the one. But, I’m going to go with your scenario.

Under the repeal, if a woman has an adulteress affair with an officer’s wife and is discharged as a result, the woman can’t successfully claim it was because she was gay, because DADT would no longer exist.

She can say she shouldn’t be punished all she wants. Just like a male cadet who has an affair with an officer’s wife facing the same circumstances can.

How will the repeal give her special rights? The repeal gives gays in the military the basic right to serve with honor. And if that last statement raises an eyebrow (which I’m sure it will), then please read the first couple of sentences of my post #111. This isn’t about flaunting one’s sexuality in everyone’s face. This is about not having to deny or cover up simple facts like having a boy/girlfriend/partner back home.

because the fact remains that my question was perfectly reasonable and valid one from the start.

Hey, asshole, I never said that it wasn’t and you damn well know it. Hey, asshole, I never said that it wasn’t and you damn well know it. I made a friendly suggestion

Actually, that’s exactly what you did:

Sooooo…..you’re bitching at Dan because……..?

In one statement you admit you have no idea what my point was, but claim that it is just bitching. Then in your very next statement knee-jerk reflexive rant:

What’s more, I can’t figure out why you’ve chosen to be a huge dick. If Dan is really such a damnable liar, I know I wouldn’t stick around. You know where the proverbial door is and, I’m guessing, you know other blogs where you can get a hand job no questions asked.

you claim all I am doing is calling Dan a liar, and suggest I should leave because of it.

Dick, asshole, handjobs, you know where the door is….yes what FRIENDLY suggestions you’ve made! Clearly you never started anything!

Then when I asked you SEVERAL times to tell me how I could have phrased the question that you called “bitching” and called me a dick, and asshole, etc, for asking….you couldn’t do it…because there was nothing wrong with the way I asked it. What DID set you off, was that you attempted to challenge my logic in reflexive, knee-jerk defense of Dan, which I handled quickly and easily, because, as you now BEGRUDGINGLY admit, my question was valid from the start — and that hurt your teeny tiny little ego, so you flew off the handle, and have been hissing and scratching ever since.

I did no such thing. So much for your fact checking.

Yes, I’m sorry, Heather #2 did that, not Heather #1. My mistake. I make mistakes you know. I can admit it. I do it all the time. Pity youre such a tiny little girl that you cant. All this drama could have been avoided.

Now you’re showing that your pissed at Bruce.

I’m not pissed at Bruce, but I think he flew off the handle for no good reason, and that all he could do was call me names rather proves the point. And is more evidence that this blog does not welcome actual challenge, but wants simply a left vs right scenario where everyone gangs up on the left and agrees with them. That he, like you, attacks the messenger, instead of the message, rather supports that view.

Beats being a KOShole-esque lying sack of shit.

I’m sorry, do you want to show me where I’ve lied please? Or is that just more of your famed friendliness?

Somebody’s desperate for validation:

*I’d also point out that Ben Miller at Pajama’s Media agrees with my reading of the report

Actually, Heather, that’s called backing my arguments up — something I do, because unlike you, I actually CAN. And yes, he did agree with me. You see, I’ve been making that argument since before he published that article, so it would be rather impossible for me to say I agreed with an article that didn’t exist when I first started making the point.

TGC,

I often say that I’m happy when the Supremes agree with me, so that’s no biggie either.

I’m sure he’s not taking sides here, but you are now so desperate to save face that you are trying to claim common practice somehow shows how horrible I am.

Three days of hissing, spitting and scratching to….what was your purpose again? Youve admitted it was a valid question, you’ve failed to show me how I could have phrased it in a way that wouldnt be “dickish” and claimed that youve only been making friendly suggestions from the start.

Is there any point you have made that HASN’T been utterly blown out of the water?

Yes, it’s embarrassing to be wrong. The only thing worse is to dig in your pumps and refuse to admit it. Heather #2 could never do it.

The reason I’m so good at debate is NOT because I refuse to admit to being wrong, its because I DO admit to being wrong when I am.

@TGC. You’re suggesting TLW was saying the repeal would promote endless opportunities for cries of feigned persecution that would be cashed in on. If that’s the case, then, TLW, please supply a solid argument; like other countries where it’s been a problem. Otherwise, it’s pap.

By the way, Heather, I’d just point out, it isn’t the person who stands up to the crowd who is needy of validation, but the person who reflexively defends the crowd who shows that validation is exactly why he’s here.

Hmm, Sorry Vince I dont remember who that is. Its been a long time since Ive seen the movie, so the reference is just to general girlish, catty, bitchy, cliquish behavior. Nor does the reference to Neville make them Ron and Harry, more like crabbe and goyle I would think.

In Witt’s case, what the government put forward is that the military first became aware of Witt’s homosexuality when McChesney’s then-husband e-mailed Witt’s superior officers and reported the affair. Prior to this revelation in court documents leading up to this week’s trial, most news reports had conveyed Witt’s story that she was discharged for having been in a long-term relationship with a civilian woman after that relationship had broken up.

“Instead,” said West, “it was plaintiff’s relationship, beginning in November 2003, with a different civilian woman” that led to her discharge. “This particular civilian woman was married at the time plaintiff began a relationship with her. The woman’s husband brought the relationship to the Air Force’s attention.”

In short, Witt lied. Repeatedly. To the media. And then whined and cried that she was being persecuted because of her sexual orientation.

NDT> I was thrown by TLW’s phrase “another officer’s wife,” which wasn’t the case. But, under DADT repeal, she couldn’t play the gay card. She could try, but she wouldn’t be successful, because the military would no longer we conducting a policy that could expel someone for being gay.

Geez. If I’m in a club and the rules are you can’t urinate on the waiter or wear red shirts and I show in a suit concealing a red shirt and pee on the waiter, they can throw me out for peeing on the water. I can claim it was because I had a red shirt on. And I may be successful.

But, if the rules change and red shirts are now permitted and I show up in one and pee on the waiter again (fool me once … haha), they’re going to throw me out again. I can’t claim it was because I was wearing a red shirt, because IT’S NO LONGER A RULE.

I warned you I was going off of memory, Vince. I forgot that it was a civilian. Still breaks the UCMJ.

As to the idea that she couldn’t hide behind her sexuality if DADT was repealed, I’d point to the arguments used in civilian courts that laws ‘disproportionately target’ minorities. It’s not that the people aren’t guilty of the crime, it’s that they’re arguing they were singled out because of the colour of their skin. I’m betting, based on the mentality that we see from liberals, a similar argument would be waged. “Yes, the person was guilty, but you only went after them because they’re gay.” Starting with ‘how do you prove that’ and ending with ‘found innocent in the court of public opinion, it becomes a no win situation for the military.

Also, please explain how Major Margaret Witt got back into the military because of “the court of public opinion” and not because she was misusing the existence of DADT. Additionally, explain how Lt. Dan Choi, and everyone else who wanted back in, enjoyed using the “court of public opinion” to get re-instated into the military.

Again, this is about the removal of a policy, not instilling a policy that affords a minority special privileges. It’s like if I were to say that if a school ends a policy that bans wearing shorts, the school is going to start letting those who wear shorts go to the front of the lunch line everyday. There is no logic to back it up.

I’m not understanding what seems to be the argument that we should give up even trying to make society more just and fair simply because some people will continue to be unjust and unfair. That doesn’t make any sense.

Sure, some people will still play the victim card no matter what. If the rest of us have succumbed to a mentality that makes what these people do more important than anything or anyone else, then they have already won.

Imagine if you had stfu when nobody was paying you the attention you demanded.

Actually, Heather, my comment was #17, and you and the other heather responded to it immediately(#19). And have been scratching and hissing ever since.

Damn, it must suck being so totally incapable of scoring even the most minor point! And on top of that being totally unable to man up and admit to it!

You know, smacking you around was fun for a while, but it’s so damn easy that it just feels dirty and gratuitous now — taking candy from an actual baby.

Better go gang up on Ash or Levi or one of your other regulars to puff up that itsy bitsy litte ego of yours. I’m sure the other heather will be there to kiss your bruises, and whatever else you’ll let her.

Long answer: We accept valid reasons to disbar people from military service. Those reasons gain or lose validity over time. I’ve believed being gay has lost its validity, the report and the numbers have made me question that.

Okay, Livewire, I used the word “fair” fully knowing it would bring about that sort of salivary reaction in somebody. Use of this word always turns people into eight-year-olds fighting over whose pee-pee is longer.

I don’t even have a pee-bee, and I don’t need a helmet. If I tackle you you’ll be lying there long after I get up.

My point is that my concern with the military isn’t ‘fairness’ it’s effectiveness. To use other analogies. would it be ‘fair’ to put women in front line roles (ignoring for the moment that there’s no more ‘front line’ in asymetrical warfare)? Yes. Would it hamper effectiveness? ‘signs point to yes.’

Likewise, if the military (absurd example, I’ll admit) decided to segregate the ranks based on rank or religion, my primary objection would be the disruption and decrease of efficiency. (secondary, it’s a stupid idea.)

The guts of the report, while they could be presented with less, enthusiasm, by AE, do make me worry. If the 30% number is even semi accurate, there’s more to lose than to gain. My little brother supports repeal of DADT. I respect him on it, but don’t want him to die because he’s short handed and only has 70% of the guys supporting him.

My definition of military ‘fairness’ usually involved overwhelming firepower. Fair is my boys come home, the op for doesn’t.

I’ve wondered of late if some ‘limited openess’ would be an option. Letting openly gay personell serve in non-combat positions where the concerns could be mitigated (though REMF might take on a new meaning). I’ve no idea how it could work, or what the repercussions would be. Just an idle thought.

And yeah, if you’d tackle me, it would be kind of like the Man in Black vs. Fezzik, or Wolverine vs the Blob.

With all due respect, TL, I think we’re getting hung up on buzzwords. When somebody comes over from the Left to the Right — or who has been on the Left for a while begins to consider a change of mind — that person is going to have at his or her command the lingo most commonly heard. This should not result in being tossed out of the clubhouse.

It would be a shame if “fair” had to be completely gutted from the dictionary because liberals have abused it. I knew the instant I posted the dastardly comment in question that I’d used a common liberal buzzword and that this would be the end of rational discourse on the issue — insofar as I would be permitted to participate in it.

Again, instead of “fair,” I should have used “rational.” Mea culpa.

I have questioned not the fairness of DADT so much as its rationality. I’m well aware that fairness wins no points with anybody. Perhaps rationality no longer does, either.

DADT is a concession to irrationality, and it has been all along. People who think gays are icky have made an issue of it, the way a spoiled child makes an issue of the birthday gift he didn’t get by throwing himself to the floor, kicking and screaming, and turning blue. We cannot end the ban because — in essence — too many overgrown children will throw tantrums. And then we’ll really be sorry. Or something.

We have, in fact, made a childish tantrum the most important fact in the argument. This is indeed irrational, and I stand by the word. Nor is there any evidence that dealing ineffectively with the matter of sexual malfeasance in the military — as opposed to dealing with the real issue, by punishing the actual conduct itself WHEN IT HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED — will solve the problem of it.

That having been said, I’m not really going to tackle anybody. I’m too much of an old fart for that.

But when somebody new comes here, sometimes this person is not a troll, but merely clueless — or in the process of learning or changing opinion. Let’s ease up on flogging people for buzzwords. I’m sure I’ve probably done that to people myself.

I’m sorry, did Vince have a point? I’m sure he did, it was just lost in reality. After all, cases where people have been fired for actions then defended those actions by saying they were persecuted for being *blank* never happens does it Vince?

Given your inability to have a debate w/o moving the goal posts, I’m not surprised your half hearted attempts to have a discussion result in accusing me of being silent.

I’ve said the rational reason for disallowing gays in the military (i.e. that they were a blackmail/security risk) is long since past.* That said, the rational reason now seems to be that it could result in a massive turn over and troop reduction. If the numbers are accurate, as referenced in the report, a 30% reduction of active military personel in a time of war would be devestating. Like I said above, my little brother doesn’t have an issue, but I have an issue if he ends up wounded or dead because he, or his unit, are overworked, overstressed, over taxed because they’re doing a third more work.

A thought just occured to me though, and I’d like your input. What if state national guards were the ones to ‘repeal’ DADT? Is such a thing possible? Since (in theory) they’re not supposed to be as front line as the ‘real’ military** maybe that’s where to ‘experiment’.

*Bradley Manning should be taken out and shot, regardless of his sexual orientation. Attempts to justify his treason by his sexuality (something Vince says would never happen, mind you) should at most have the effect of the firing squad maybe taking longer, because laughing is throwung off their aim.

**No, I’m not belittling the national guard. Just that’s the theory, they’re not supposed to be as front line as the Federal military.

TL, perhaps the state national guards are the place to try the experiment of repealing DADT first. I definitely believe that the states were intended to be the labororatories in which many social changes are tried before anything is done on the federal level.

179 >> I never said that such things never happened. Never even suggested. So, you’re putting words in my mouth. If I said such things, then cite examples. I only ask you, because they’re not there.

You were suggesting that such things would be happening left, right and center, 24/7. And that’s all the repeal would lead to.

And, I say, you’re wrong because you provide no evidence of any pro-gay policies leading to an onslaught of gays taking advantage of the system.

So, you did nothing by responding.

Concerns of mass exodus of troops were also forecast in the Canadian army before the 1992 policy change allowing gays to serve openly. Guess what? Whatever exodus occurred was a thimble full. Your gloom and doom is all that: gloom and doom.

If the legislative appeal doesn’t go through (currently, Sen. Lieberman’s stand-alone amendment), it may be turned over judicially, due to several suits being filed, the military would have no time to prepare. At least with a legislative appeal, a plan can be hatched and implemented to provide a transition.

Poor Vince, tries putting words in my mouth while arguing that I’d put words in his. Though I will confess to being flattered that he thinks so highly of me that he tries to emulate the phrase I use when I shred our resident bigot. Unfortunately he doesn’t seem to understand that it fits when talking to a child, not when one can’t defend an argument. The concept of “Ignore the report! Do it anyway!” stinks of someone who has made up his mind, and little things like facts won’t change it for him